To say that just because someone is opposed to " Trans Acceptance Without Exception" it doesn't mean that they are GC or Feminist.

[TooBigForMyBoots]

And it's important to understand the difference?

Some oppose Trans Rights Activism from a Radical Feminist POV. Gender is abstract. A societal construct that can be accepted, rejected or adapted throughout life. Gender is different to biological sex which is scientifically binary and immutable so Gender is not really important and not a stable basis for law.

Some oppose Trans Rights Activism from a Feminist POV. Gender might have a biological component. Fine with gender ideology long as biological women's rights, security and single sex spaces are safe with no encroachment from males.

Some oppose Trans Activism because it goes against their religious beliefs. It does not make them GC or Feminist.

Some oppose it because they believe in stereotypical gender roles. Men should be men and women should be women. This is not GC or Feminist.

Some oppose it because of misogyny. They hate women. They hate men pretending to be women because it debases men. This is not GC or feminist.

Am i being Unreasonable to say that just because someone is opposed to TRA "acceptance without exception", it doesnt mean they are Gender Critical or feminists. And we need to understand the difference.

Also you still haven’t provided the anti trans posts you claimed were on this thread.

And you didn’t respond to the fact that you wanting women to shut up in case the tories get in, is anti women.

I'm not getting into the level of debate you find in the sex and gender forums. You need to head there if you want a fight.

So back tracked?

But not completely. Because it’s still not clear what a GRC will mean.

Are you suggesting he now doesn’t agree that all trans women are women but dare not say it clearly?

What changed his mind?

He has revised his stance on the issue after listening to women's concerns.

No. He's still left the door open for men who identify as women and get a GRC.

So you saying this thread was full anti trans comments is fine. That’s perfectly acceptable.

Someone saying they don’t see that and asking you to provide them, is looking for a fight?

Do you see the ridiculousness of your argument? You levelled accusations that you couldn’t stand by. People asking you to pint out anti trans statements aren’t the ones look for a fight.

The reason that people think that 'gender-critical' is right wing is because all of the leading GC organisations supported attacks on Gillick competence, cosy up to anti-abortionists, attack LGBT charities, attack rape crisis and then say they're 'politically homeless' while cheering on the disgusting Suella Braverman. The extreme right were rubbing their hands with glee I would think.

People should definitely look at the 'feminism' board here where you'll see a whole load of anonymous people saying they're fighting for women's rights while doing nothing of the sort. Their political 'lack of purity' means that they're willing to give any right wing knobhead airtime as long as they believe in 'biology' - but also spend their time attacking anyone on the left who disagrees.

And don't even get me started on the racism and antisemitism prevalent in the GC movement - which includes people on Mumsnet sharing vile Patriotic Alternative videos against drag queens and presenting them as concerned parents.

What usually happens now is that one of the regulars will either report this post or question my credibility. Debate my arse!

People should definitely look at the 'feminism' board here where you'll see a whole load of anonymous people saying they're fighting for women's rights while doing nothing of the sort. Their political 'lack of purity' means that they're willing to give any right wing knobhead airtime as long as they believe in 'biology'

Headline news - different people agreeing that water is wet. More at 11.

Exactly this. Dr doesn't quite get this point yet.

And you're also an anonymous poster pushing an agenda @rosa17

Do you not think that a good politician (or human for that matter) is prepared to reconsider after listening to people's concerns?

Wouldn't it, for example, have been better if the Tories had stopped and listened to the warnings and concerns so many had about Brexit and not just stuck to driving their point across at any cost (with lies and scaremongering) for political and financial gain (for themselves)?

Their political 'lack of purity' means that they're willing to give any right wing knobhead airtime as long as they believe in 'biology' - but also spend their time attacking anyone on the left who disagrees.

Take out the tribal war rhetoric here and what have you got?

People who believe in biological reality and disagree with those who don't.

Seems reasonable.

Right. So no one can question you or it’s not a debate.

Its a or a debate is no one is allowed to question what you have said.

Why do people who have the stance the GC women are awful, always get arsey when someone questions what they have said? Always trying to shut down any response.

It suggests you know your argument is massively flawed.

I’d love @rosa17 to explain how enabling men to use women’s spaces on the basis of their own declaration is anyway supportive of women’s rights

if people really can’t see that sex is binary and men aren’t women isn’t a right/left issue but a basic fucking reality issue then I really worry (even more) about this country

Please provide the exact quotation which confirms that Starmer will exclude males who are 'legal women' by virtue of a piece of paper, from single sex spaces.

And if he has (I do not believe he has) please tell me how any male can be excluded from single sex spaces when the law says that a male cannot be asked to produce evidence that they are legal women (to show the GRC). This has the affect that all spaces are mixed sex.

The Labour Party could be very clear on this and they are not. You want women to shut up about this and accuse us of being 'right wing' as a result of asking reasonable questions!

I don't like Matt Walsh. He's an antifeminist, anti abortion dickhead. He doesn't like gender critical feminists and he takes all the credit. I'm not going to share any of his other videos. But he's right on this one issue.

Of course it’s great if he listened.

But he hasn’t. Because he isn’t clear on GRC and its impact. That suggests he hasn’t listened.

Or he has but dare not be very clear.

The tories are twats and I have never voted for them. But them being twats doesn’t mean the Labour give a shit about women.

The point is that it doesn't matter what you identify yourself as - lots of angry bearded left wing men will label you that anyway because you don't think that penises belong in a women's changing room.

This is where we are.

The point is that it doesn't matter what you identify yourself as - lots of angry bearded left wing men will label you that anyway because you don't think that penises belong in a women's changing room.

This is where we are.

It is.

That's a whole lot of words for saying you think women should stay in our lane and you put the feels of males above the safety and dignity of women.

what has Brexit got to do with Women's rights?

Do you consider Stonewall to be far right then? Because you may want to check our their lovely trans umbrella...

Why don't you read my post again (as many times as necessary) if you don't understand the point I'm making.

A lot of Labour voters also supported Brexit.

I've read your post and don't understand why Brexit has anything to do with whether women should have single sex spaces.

It doesn't. You are making a strawman argument.

Tory MPs have reported women to their employers and the police for the "crime" of retweeting JKR. Private individuals like you and me.

Yet little is said about that. It's another example of the RW amplifying TRA voices on the left while ignoring those on the right.

God this is depressing.

Everyone hates women when it comes down to it.